As many readers in Massachusetts may already know, in January of this year the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) was cited for violating the rights of two learning-disabled clients. In its letter to DTA, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the Federal Department of Health & Human Services stated that:
. . . DTA fails generally to provide for the needs of learning disabled individuals in the TAFDC program, because: (1) DTA denies individuals with learning disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the TAFDC program that is equal to the opportunity afforded non-disabled individuals; (2) DTA utilizes methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with learning disabilities to disability-based discrimination; and (3) DTA fails to make reasonable modifications in TAFDC programs necessary to avoid discrimination against individuals with learning disabilities on the basis of disability.
Specifically, DTA was found to be in violation of both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Readers who are interested in the details of the OCR investigation and its findings can request a copy of the letter from the A.L.R.I.
While many ABE clients and practitioners have experience with DTA, and sometimes question the agency's practices and procedures, this may not be the most important response to the information contained in the OCR letter. Rather, state and federally funded ABE programs should be spurred to examine their own policies and practices. Are we providing services to our learning-disabled clients equal to those available to clients without such disabilities? Do our policies and practices ever, intentionally or unintentionally, create a situation of de facto discrimination? Addressing this issue demands that we examine some of the most challenging issues in our field: enrollment/admissions policies; the use of standardized tests; classroom practices; teacher training.
On paper, ABE programs are open to adults wishing to improve their literacy/numeracy skills, obtain a secondary credential, or improve their skills in English. In most cases, programs administer tests to prospective applicants, and use these test scores to determine the most appropriate placement for each individual. If slots are available, new learners can join classes. If not, they can be placed on waiting lists, and/or referred to other programs. Individuals who enroll in programs complete some kind of intake assessment, set short and long-term goals, and participate in an orientation to the program's policies and practices. If learners fail to meet the expectations for attendance and participation, a program may terminate them after following a series of designated steps (usually a phone call, warning letter, and then termination letter).
The first question we should ask about this sequence is whether or not we carry it out fairly. Most programs in Massachusetts use either the TABE, the AMES, or the BEST test as a diagnostic/placement tool. While many adult educators do not necessarily believe that the results of these tests are 100% accurate, they do believe that the results are consistent. But are they?
Each of the tests listed above includes a number of different components, and programs may use one, all or a selection of those components during their intake process. Depending on the components selected, the conditions of testing, and the particular strengths and weaknesses of different learners, it is not impossible that two people with comparable skills might end up scoring very differently on what is, ostensibly, the same test.
This would matter little if every candidate for enrollment were guaranteed a place in the program where testing is conducted. But in an environment of limited resources, it is possible that no slot is open in the level at which a student tests, or that the only available slot is in a different program altogether. Can we be sure that student who achieved a 5.8 GLE, just missing the cutoff for Program X's pre-ASE class, would not have scored 6.2 if different components of the test had been used, or if testing conditions were different? And if that student is referred to Program Y, how can we be sure that the method of testing there yields comparable results?
Given the wide variety of diagnosed and diagnosed, disclosed and undisclosed disabilities which affect the ABE population, it would be impossible to design an intake system that met each learner's needs perfectly. However, programs should take some time to consider the ways that their standard practices may create a pattern of bias against students with specific kinds of disabilities.
Assuming that no such bias exists, and that slots are available for all applicants at a given time, programs should then consider their enrollment policies. Most programs are not guilty of blatant discrimination against any particular group of students. However, the fuzziness of categories can create situations where bias may be perceived. Consider, for instance, the line between ESOL and ABE. Clearly, if an adult wishes to attend classes and has no English-language skills, ESOL is the appropriate choice, as opposed to ABE. But at what point should a potential student be given the choice to attend an ABE class, even if English is not his/her first language? Is there a minimum score required on a test like the TABE or the AMES? Does the potential student need to demonstrate a particular level of spoken-language proficiency? How do GLEs and SPLs compare in the classroom, and how different is that from the way they line up on paper? And ultimately, how can programs make decisions that are consistent and fair in an arena with so many variables?
Most programs and teachers are capable of making reasonably accurate assessments about who will and will not benefit from participation in a particular program or class. But if we cannot defend these decisions with something more than "the best judgment of the teacher/counselor/program director," we have little to work with in the event that such a decision is challenged.
The possibility of discrimination does not stop at enrollment. Even after learners have been admitted to programs and begun participating in classes, the possibility still exists that a teacher's choice of materials and methods may create a situation where some learners cannot fully benefit from their time in class. While there is widespread awareness in the field about the impact of learning disabilities and other kinds of learning challenges, that knowledge has not been put to use in every classroom. Indeed, the women who filed the complaint against DTA had participated in education programs, but had dropped out because they were unable to handle the work in the classes to which they were assigned.
Most program directors allow teachers broad discretion in the way that they set up and run their classes. This allows teachers to experiment with a variety of materials and methods, and generally creates a climate where most students are able to make satisfactory progress. However, there are teachers whose choice of strategies and materials is too limited to meet the needs of all students. Common problems include: exclusive reliance on individual or whole-group instruction; heavily visual or auditory strategies; methods or materials derived primarily from K-12 settings; lack of awareness about specific challenges which may make it difficult for a learner to participate in a class in expected ways.
The common bond among these problems is lack of balance. Given the diversity of adult learners, the variety of academic backgrounds they possess, and the challenges they may face, no one strategy can be expected to address all learners' needs effectively. Both research and teacher folklore suggest that most teachers teach as they themselves were taught, which may be acceptable in a high school history class, but presents problems in a roomful of adult learners.
As we can safely assume that ABE teachers do want their students to learn, the problem becomes one of training and supervision. Teachers, particularly those new to the field, can benefit from regular feedback, whether from a more experienced teacher, a program administrator, or an outside trainer, such as SABES or YALD staff. Experienced teachers, too, can gain new insights and energy when they have opportunities to think about and discuss their teaching practice with colleagues or administrators. But this is not simply a matter of helping teachers to feel comfortable. Our population is becoming increasingly diverse, and our continued educational effectiveness depends on the ability of teachers and programs to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing needs in the student population.
It may seem unlikely that an adult education program would become the focus of a complaint similar to the one filed against DTA, but their example should lead us to consider how our programs are and are not meeting the needs of learners. How does your program meet the needs of its learners? Who attends your program, who gets sent elsewhere, and who enrolls but then drops out? What patterns do you detect, and what do they suggest about your policies and practices?
In the bidders' conference for the last 5-year RFP from the Department of Education, Bob Bickerton told us that physical accessibility was no longer an issue--it was an absolute requirement. The next five years, he said, should be about creating "true accessibility," meeting the needs of all the adults who came seeking our services. The DTA case demonstrates clearly the potential consequences if we fail to meet that challenge.
Marie Hassett teaches ABE at ABCD in Boston and is an independent consultant in the field of adult basic education.